 If a surrogate is lucky, her jurisdiction has comprehensive legislation which covers her rights and responsibilities, as well as those of the intended parents, such as Illinois or Texas. For example, the Illinois Gestational Carrier Act states specifically what is and what is not allowed, and the circumstances under which a surrogacy may be contracted and carried out. It also states who may become a surrogate, how a parent-child relationship can be established, and what remedies are available to the parties in case of noncompliance.  Likewise, the Texas state statute defines and codifies many of the same issues surrounding surrogacy.


	Whether a surrogacy contract is enforceable or recognized in a state seems to turn mostly on that state’s definition of “family.”  For instance, Nevada allows “two people whose marriage is valid under Nevada law” to enter into a surrogacy agreement.  Since Nevada’s state constitution reserves marriage to heterosexual couples, the surrogacy statute effectively discriminates against homosexual couples. It is also discriminatory on its face against unmarried persons. However, the statute says nothing about the marital status of the surrogate. It does not demand that she be unmarried. If it did, the state could be criticized as promoting pregnancy (in whatever form) out of wedlock. It also does not demand that she be married, for then the state could be accused of tearing a potential family apart, i.e., removing a child from the parents who cared for it in gestation and may have rights to it despite the presence of a contract. Therefore, a double standard seems to be apparent, as being an unmarried intended parent in the eyes of the law (in some states) precludes one from contracting for a surrogacy.


The debate over surrogates’ rights within legislation also turns on compensation. The issue of compensation within a surrogacy contract is hotly debated. States such as Washington allow surrogacy, but only if the surrogate is not paid for her time or effort beyond actual expenses incurred.  Arizona, Michigan and the District of Columbia have gone so far as to criminalize the practice of surrogacy outright.  


	“Altruistic” surrogacy is defined as unpaid, noncommercial surrogacy, where the surrogate receives no compensation above and beyond reasonable expenses.  In this situation, a surrogate is presumed to be acting of her own free will to help a loved one.  Many jurisdictions that choose to legislate surrogacy remain silent on so-called “altruistic” surrogacy while specifically banning paid surrogacy.  It is a policy rationale that allowing a surrogate to be paid for her service somehow violates the woman’s body as sanctum and her womb as sanctum sanctorum and instead cheapens and commodifies her unique capability to carry and bear children. Some conservative lobbyists insist that surrogacy can only be viewed one of two ways: first, that if it is the service for sale, the surrogate is committing “reproductive prostitution” by selling her body in exchange for money, and second, that the resultant child is viewed as an item for sale, which is expressly forbidden in every state.
